CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER?NOT

n/a ^ | 9/29/02 | self

[raysol]

Uncle Sam Globalcop rides again.So much for avoiding foreign entanglements.I stand in opposition to the looming war with Iraq for more reasons than I will list here.I dont favor Saddam Hussein at all but neither do I buy Bush's rational for invading Iraq which is still a sovereign country & its NOT our place to dictate to its people who their leaders should be nor are we to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy as the founding fathers put it way back when.

The case hasnt been made to justify or warrant such a perilous course despite Bush's hollow claims & saber rattling which sounds more like a personal vendetta of his than legitimate national security concerns.To me its more likely to finish what his father started or over oil & both Bushes seem to want Saddams head on a platter just to settle old scores.

Going down this ominous path on such dubious grounds will only incite more antiAmerican sentiments & further destabilize an already volatile region especially if Israel(which doesnt see Iraq as an imminent threat)gets involved in it.If having weapons of mass destruction is the Bush standard for such aggressive action then why not go into China,N.Korea etc who do pose a credible & real threat to US?For US to pick on Iraq is like a heavyweight boxer bullying a lightweight.There is NO clear & present danger to US & if there is let Congress declare war as the Constitution mandates as We the People surely DONT need UN approval to defend our nation but Congress should not just rollover & rubber stamp the pending war resolution either.Let them hear from you now.May cooler & more prudent heads prevail to rein in the warmongerers before this comes back to bite & haunt US like 9/11.

[Texasforever]

Hmm, wonder why you chose that particular freepname? Not really.

Smirkingchip was taken. The guy/gal is obviously a DU Plant.

[wimpycat]

Too bad your pathetic vanity post is so riddled with mis-spellings and grammatical errors.

It's been my experience that these types are usually the worst spellers and grammarians.

[wimpycat]

[EternalVigilance]

I hope to God we never know it.

As both President Bush and Condoleeza Rice have said--the first real 100% sure evidence we might have that they have nukes could be a mushroom cloud.

That risk is well worth more than a little pre-emption.

I think anyone who believes that Hussein and/or his terrorist buddies won't use a nuke should on us they manage to get their hands on one is a dangerous naif.

[okie01]

"He did retaliate, he sent missiles, and this was before Monica."

That would be missile, singular.

Hit one building, killed one janitor.

BFD.

[jwalsh07]

Do these members of the United States Army look stupid, frightened and confused to you?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Unless Bush does something soon about the imminent threat to our security, our open borders, then nothing else is going to matter very much.

IF THIS GOVERNMENT WILL NOT OR CANNOT CONTROL OUR BORDERS, IT TOO WILL BECOME ILLEGITIMATE.

[jps098]

No kidding about SBeck. With his attitude I can say he would not make a good Marine officer. I served in Desert Storm as a Tank Platoon commander and get so tired of the, "Why didn't we stop 9/11 from happening, but don't try to stop the next attack," crowd. There is quite a bit of evidence pointing to an Iraqi role in the WTC 93 attack and OKC. If an attack does come, no doubt he'll blame Bush for not letting the UN (usual nonsense) do their job.

[Joe Hadenuf]

So you, that corrupt, Enron-infested, toxic waste dump of a state, and your entire life can go straight to where the sun don't shine.

Hehehe......

[sweetliberty]

"reasonable leftist"

Oxymoron on ANY site.

[stylin19a]

um....stupid is your word, not mine.

[okie01]

"Sometimes I wish that some reasonable leftist would post here; does that ever happen? Or is that completely oxymoronic on this site?"

There are "reasonable leftists". And they post here; it happens. But those "reasonable leftists" are usually in violent disagreement with the Democrats on specific issues (like Clinton corruption, impeachment, abortion, national defense, Waco, Elian Gonzalez, e.g.) and they most often post to those subjects in which they favor the conservative position.

Occasionally, though, they can be engaged in debate on issues that are subject to disagreement. Such debates with your "reasonable leftists" are invariably civil and intelligently conducted -- usually ending in an agreement to disagree.

There are probably some "reasonable leftists" posting to this very thread, or lurking on it, right now. They are here, though, because they are disgusted with the Democrat position vis-a-vis on Iraq. As well they should be...

[sweetliberty]

"...a DU Plant."

A little play on words there perhaps? LOL!

[jwalsh07]

um....stupid is your word, not mine.

Thats right it is, it's the one I use to describe people who make assinine statements like the one you made above.

What does "can't compute" mean in your vernacular? Smart?

[palmer]

Hope I'm not too late to respond to your post. I keep wondering what specific support Saddam could give to the hijackers at the alleged meeting in Prague or at other times. What did they need from him considering they had Saudi money, INS visas and a large element of surprise that could have been compromised by Iraqi double agents?

About WMD, they will be with us for a long time to come. Weapons made by good guys inevitably end up in the hands of bad guys. How do we deal with it over the long run? Giving carrots like we give to North Korea has two advantages, it is much cheaper and it preserves our military for the really bad cases.

Which leads to my final question, do you think other countries will be more or less afraid of us after Iraq War II? Think about it, we will be in major occupation mode, our will to act will be satisfied (except the neocons), and our military muscle will have once again been demonstrated on an utter weakling (Iraq is clearly weaker than it was in 1991).

[okie01]

Seminar posters--we must be moving up in the world.

Seminar posters on FR are nothing new. To my knowledge, they began to appear coincident with the premiere of "Monica's Story".

Since then, there have been intervals of "peak activity". During the run-up to the House impeachment vote, during the Senate "trial", again for the Kosovo Adventure and, notably, during the 2000 Republican primaries.

The latter case is particularly interesting. It was the first use (that I observed, anyway) of agent provocateur tactics. Raging flame wars were conducted between "Buchananite Losers" and "arrogant Bushies" -- both newly registered. No effort was spared, in an attempt to offend both sides and drive a wedge between conservatives.

Now, with Iraq, the seminar posters have returned in force. Inactive screennames dredged up and dusted off for a new turn around the block...

[okie01]

"I keep wondering what specific support Saddam could give to the hijackers at the alleged meeting in Prague or at other times. What did they need from him considering they had Saudi money, INS visas and a large element of surprise that could have been compromised by Iraqi double agents?"

Try anthrax. About 20 grams of it...

[palmer]

That's a possibility. I'll have to beg the question: how will we deal anthrax producing countries after Iraq? Also would like to see some evidence considering the gravity of attacking the country for it.